"This transformative hospital price transparency rule has been fought at every step by the swamp and defenders of the status quote," White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said in a statement.
She said the court ruling should convince the American people that President Donald Trump will not bow to special interests "who would prefer to keep patients in the dark".
Melinda Hatton, general counsel for the American Hospital Association, said it supports price transparency and making patients' out-of-pocket cost estimates easier to access and understand, but is disappointed with the ruling.
"The AHA continues to believe that the disclosure of privately negotiated rates does nothing to help patients understand what they will actually pay for treatment and will create widespread confusion for them," Hatton said in a statement.
"We also believe it will accelerate anticompetitive behaviour among commercial health insurers and hinder innovations in value-based care delivery. Lastly, the requirement imposes significant costs on care providers at a time when scarce resources are needed to fight COVID-19 and save lives," Hatton added.
The hospital association has urged President-elect Joe Biden to review the rule.
The industry argues that forcing the disclosure of prices negotiated between hospitals and insurers amounts to coercion.
As proposed, the Trump administration rule would require that hospitals publish in a consumer-friendly manner negotiated rates for the 300 most common services that can be scheduled in advance, such as a knee replacement, a Cesarean-section delivery or an MRI scan.
Hospitals would have to disclose what they'd be willing to accept if the patient pays cash. The information would be updated every year. Publish all their charges in a format that can be read on the internet by other computer systems. This would allow web developers and consumer groups to come up with tools that patients and their families can use.
Insurers also oppose the plan, saying it could prompt providers that are accepting a bargain price to try to bid up what they charge if they see that others are getting more.
A separate regulation that applies to insurers has not been finalised.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Business Standard has always strived hard to provide up-to-date information and commentary on developments that are of interest to you and have wider political and economic implications for the country and the world. Your encouragement and constant feedback on how to improve our offering have only made our resolve and commitment to these ideals stronger. Even during these difficult times arising out of Covid-19, we continue to remain committed to keeping you informed and updated with credible news, authoritative views and incisive commentary on topical issues of relevance.
We, however, have a request.
As we battle the economic impact of the pandemic, we need your support even more, so that we can continue to offer you more quality content. Our subscription model has seen an encouraging response from many of you, who have subscribed to our online content. More subscription to our online content can only help us achieve the goals of offering you even better and more relevant content. We believe in free, fair and credible journalism. Your support through more subscriptions can help us practise the journalism to which we are committed.
Support quality journalism and subscribe to Business Standard.